Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386

Peekay invested through ANZ after receiving an informal description of a product linked to Russian treasury bills. The detailed documents described the actual investment structure and risks, which differed from the proprietary interest the investor later asserted it had expected. Peekay's representative signed the documents and returned instructions referring to them, but said he had not read them carefully. Following losses, Peekay claimed misrepresentation. The Court of Appeal considered what had been said, the significance of the written transaction and whether the earlier description had induced the agreement on the asserted basis.

Could Peekay establish reliance on an earlier description inconsistent with the detailed investment documents it signed and instructed the bank to act upon?

The Court of Appeal allowed the bank's appeal. The investor entered the transaction on detailed documents identifying the actual product and its risks, after receiving an earlier informal description. The court held that the investor could not establish the asserted inducement by treating those contractual documents as an irrelevant formality. The judgment distinguished merely having an opportunity to discover the truth from entering on written terms that themselves defined the transaction. It also discussed contractual estoppel arising from the signed acknowledgements. The decision does not mean every signature defeats misrepresentation: an alleged assurance about the document, fraud and statutory controls require their own analysis. Later authority limits the use of non-reliance wording to evade statutory protection.

Detailed contractual terms and signed acknowledgements can defeat an assertion of reliance on an inconsistent earlier description, depending on the transaction and evidence. Mere opportunity to discover the truth is insufficient by itself; incorporation, actual inducement and statutory control of exclusion or non-reliance provisions must be distinguished.

Peekay is important because its result is often overstated as signing defeats misrepresentation. The court expressly recognised that discoverability alone does not answer inducement, and its conclusion depended on the documents and the investor's instructions. Read it with Redgrave v Hurd and First Tower Trustees v CDS when considering modern non-reliance clauses. A strong answer identifies the alleged statement, any correction or contractual definition, the actual reliance evidence and whether the wording is substantively excluding liability subject to statutory reasonableness.